Surrounding the zone of pseudo-liberals is the zone of dupes. In this zone are to be found the genuinely patriotic American citizens from a great variety of walks of life. They have simply been deceived. Many solid citizens are astonished when they discover the trap into which they have fallen. Read more at www.schwarzreport.org

Why is this so important to understand? Because in fighting the evils of communism (and its many collectivist permutations) it is imperative – as in any battle – to know one’s enemy. It has been said that “communism is not an ideology in which men believe, but a conspiracy in which men participate.” That being an amply proven fact, it is the height of folly to persist in the belief that it is solely “on the battlefield of ideas that the fate of the world will be decided.” Honest dupes and misguided idealists may be intellectually converted, that is true, but those who have consciously chosen evil are not likely to be converted by “ideas.” They must be morally and spiritually converted, or restrained by force. Sending missionaries into troubled areas to help keep youngsters from going into a life of crime may be a wise preventive measure, but without an essential police presence with adequate investigation and enforcement efforts, common hoods and organized criminal elements will soon overwhelm the unprotected. Read more at www.mega.nu

The people did not establish our constitution, nor was it inspired by divine intervention as so many suggest. It would be difficult for me to imagine that God would have a hand in the destruction of our inherent and natural rights. No, this flagrantly flawed document was designed and implemented by a few corrupt men led by Alexander Hamilton. Their agenda was guided not by any desire to achieve liberty for all, but by a grand lust for power and control. Had that not been the case, the Declaration of Independence would have been the guide for any new set of rules, and our original constitution would have been even more scrutinized instead of being replaced. Read more at lewrockwell.com

On the other hand, Holland reminds us, an open canon—“a Bible with the back cover torn off” (209)—has intuitive, even logical appeal. The God of the biblical anthology is manifestly a God who speaks, and it is only natural to expect that God will continue to speak today. In the terms of an ancient Latin truism that Holland employs to good effect, si Dei sint, divinatio est (“if Gods exist, revelation exists”; Latter-day Saints may recall Hugh B. Brown’s famous 1955 “Profile of a Prophet” speech on this point). Read more at bycommonconsent.com

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ….  A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. – (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177)

“Unconstitutionality is illegality of the highest order.” –(Board of Zoning Appeals V. Decatur Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 233 Ind. 83, 117 NE 2nd. 115)

“An unconstitutional statute is an utter nullity, is void from the date of its enactment, and is incapable of creating any rights.” –(Probst V. Board of Education Lands and Funds, DC Neb 103 F)

“By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon enquiry, and renders judgement only after trial. The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty and property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment, is not, therefore, to be considered the law of the land.” –(Webster, Dartmouth College V. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 581 [1819])

“Legislative enactments contrary to natural law or natural justice were regarded as “ipso facto” void and it was declared to be the duty of all persons to resist their enforcement. The view of the English Philosopher that “that which is not just is not law and that which is not law ought not to be obeyed.” –(Sydney, Discourses Concerning Government, Book III Chapter II)

“As men we have God for our King, and are under the law of Reason: As Christians, we have Jesus the Messiah for our King, and are under the law revealed by him in the gospel.” –(John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity)

“My attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the Alabama Constitution: ‘That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.’” (Art. I Sec 35) –(Ezra Taft Benson, The proper role of Government, Conference Report April 1968)

“This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times, no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, meidately or immediately, from this original.” –(William Blackstone, 1765, _Commentaries On The Laws Of England_, Book I, Sec 2, No. 41)

“The origin of justice is to be found in law, for law is a natural force; it is the mind and reason for the intelligent man, the standard by which Justice and Injustice are measured . . . but in determining what Justice is, let us begin with that Supreme Law which had its origin ages before any written law existed or any State had been established.” –(Cicero, _Laws_, I, 19)

“My lords, let us consider just law. Does it bring tranquility, good order, piety, justice and liberty and property to a people? Does it nourish patriotism and the way of a manly and upright life? Then it is a good law, and deserves our utter obedience. But if it brings pain, intolerable burdens, injustice, sleepless anxiety and fear and slavery to a people, then it is an evil law passes and upheld by evil men, who hate humanity and wish to subjugate and control it.” –(Cicero, quoted in A Pillar of Iron, p. 163)

“The essence of law does not depend upon words and clauses, inserted in a code or statute book, much less upon the conclusion and explications of lawyers; but upon reason and the nature of things antecedent to all laws.” –(Trenchard and Gordon, as quoted by Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, p. 456)

“The imagining omnipotence that whatever is ordained must be law, without any exception fo right or wrong, must be restrained within the bounds of reason, justice and natural equity, and acts therefore which are contrary to nature, justice, morality, benevolence, are contrary to reason, and notwithstanding the authority of Kings, Lords, or Commons, were null, and void, being mere corruptions and not laws.” –(An unnamed North Carolinian writing in 1787, as quoted by Gordon Wood, _The Creation of the American Republic_, p. 458)

“It is a monstrous absurdity to suppose, that the law is to be learnt by a perpetual copying of precedents. For time immemorial can never give a sanction to what is against reason and common sense.” –(William Livington, as quoted by Hamlin, _Legal Edition_, p. 159)

“Kings and parliaments did not make law, according to the medieval tradition; they discovered what was the law and promulgated it.” –(Clarence B. Carson, _The American Tradition_, p. 40)

“Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy: for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to the former. To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it do not at all increase its moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae (in the court of conscience) to abstatin from its perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we, are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.” –(William Blackstone, as quoted by Clarence B. Carson in _The American Tradition_, p. 41)

“We may safely assert . . . that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God . . . all commands running counter to the declared will of the Supreme Legislator of Heaven and Earth, are null and void; and therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime . . .” –(Jonathan Mayhew, as quoted by Clarence B. Carson in _The American Tradition_, p. 42)

“When Kings, ministers, governors, or legislators, therefore, instead of exercising the powers entrusted with them according to the principles, forms, and proportions stated by the constitution, and established by the original compact, prostitute those powers to the purpose of oppression; to subvert, instead of supporting a free constitution; to destroy, instead of preserving the lives, liberties and properties of the people; they are no longer to be deemed magistrates vested with a sacred character, but become public enemies, and ought to be resisted.” –(John Adams, _The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, notes and illustration_, by Charles Francis Adams, 1856; also quoted by President David O. McKay, Conference Report, Oct 1961) Read more at sites.google.com

Vieira notes how the founders used precise linguistic wording in their use of the phrases “fix the standard” and “regulate. . . value” and subtly diverge in meaning:

The phrase “fix the standard” empowers Congress to define the basic units of “Weights and Measures”; whereas, the phrase “regulate the Value” empowers Congress only to apply the basic unit of “Value”, which the constitution elsewhere explicitly identifies as the “dollar”, a known, historically fixed weight of silver. Moreover, whereas the verb “fix” as applied to “Weights and Measures” implies “stability and confirmation”, the verb “regulate” as applied to coinage implies continuous adjustment. . . the Framers. . . in one phrase selecting the verb that connotes the establishment of permanent “Standards”, without which a system of “Weights and Measures” cold not serve its purpose; and, in the other, choosing the synonym that connotes a process of inter-comparisons among changing forms of coinage, according to a set “Money-Unit”, without which a monetary system involving both gold and silver could not achieve its end.(26)

26. Vieira, pg 51. Read more at sites.google.com

Under the newly formed Constitution of the United States, Congress in 1792, established a mint and authorized the minting of both silver and gold coins. The “Standard” was established by making the “Dollar” the “money of Account of the United States” which all public offices and courts were bound to accept, and defining that “Dollar” as 371.25 grains of pure silver(20) which was the average weight then of the Spanish Piece of Eight.(21) Gold coins in the form of “Eagles”, “Half Eagles”, and “Quarter Eagles” were also authorized.(22) The ratio between gold and silver (as then deemed accurate by the free market) was established as 15:1.(23) The Eagle was to be “of the value of ten dollars or units” so its weight was defined as 270.5 grains of pure gold (each “dollars” worth of value being 24.75 grains of gold or 1/15 of 371.25 thus keeping in line with the ratio of 15:1). Lesser Gold and Silver coins were also authorized and their respective “weights” and “values” were also determined by the standard–371.25 grains of silver. Thus Congress “fixed” the standard of value as 371.25 grains of pure silver, called this weight of silver a “Dollar”, and “regulated” the value of other gold and silver coins (both the newly minted coins whether gold or silver and the Spanish milled Dollar) according to this standard. It is important to note that gold coins, taking the Eagle as an example, was not denominated in terms of “dollars” but was simply called an “Eagle” which had an intrinsic free market worth “of the value of ten dollars”.(24)

Thus in the Colonies and later under the Government of the United States Constitution, a fixed weight of silver was recognized as the standard by which to measure all other coins both gold and silver. Adam Smith notes how the general public largely understood the concepts of “fixing” a standard and “regulating” the value of coinage:

. . . as people become gradually more familiar with the use of different metals in coin, and consequently better acquainted with the proportion between their respective values, it has in most countries. . . been found convenient to ascertain this proportion, and to declare by a public law, that a guinea (of gold), for example, of such a weight and fineness, should exchange for one and twenty shillings (of silver) or be a legal tender for a debt of that amount. In this state of things, and during the continuation of any one regulated proportion of this kind, the distinction between the metal which is the standard, and that which is not the standard, becomes little more than a nominal distinction.(25)

Vieira notes how the founders used precise linguistic wording in their use of the phrases “fix the standard” and “regulate. . . value” and subtly diverge in meaning:

The phrase “fix the standard” empowers Congress to define the basic units of “Weights and Measures”; whereas, the phrase “regulate the Value” empowers Congress only to apply the basic unit of “Value”, which the constitution elsewhere explicitly identifies as the “dollar”, a known, historically fixed weight of silver. Moreover, whereas the verb “fix” as applied to “Weights and Measures” implies “stability and confirmation”, the verb “regulate” as applied to coinage implies continuous adjustment. . . the Framers. . . in one phrase selecting the verb that connotes the establishment of permanent “Standards”, without which a system of “Weights and Measures” cold not serve its purpose; and, in the other, choosing the synonym that connotes a process of inter-comparisons among changing forms of coinage, according to a set “Money-Unit”, without which a monetary system involving both gold and silver could not achieve its end.(26)

20. Thomas Jefferson at first (before he saw the wisdom of maintaining the standard of the piece of eight) advocated making the original money unit or dollar (A silver coin) of the weight of one ounce or one cubic inch, rainwater exactly, ‘measures, weights and coins, thus referred to standards unchangeable in their nature would themselves be unchangeable. (Jefferson’s Writings by H. A. Washington, Vol VII p. 490 as quoted in Paul Bakewell, “Thirteen Curious Errors about Money,” p. 49)

It was upon Alexander Hamilton’s suggestion that the United States adopt as its standard the already existing standard–that of the Spanish piece of eight. Hamilton had a study performed of the average weight of the piece of eight (which was determined to be 371.25 grains of pure silver) and in his report for the 1st Coinage Act stated: “There is scarcely any authority in the economy of national affairs of greater moment that the uniform preservation of the intrinsic value of the money unit” (Annals of the First Congress, vol II, p. 211 as quoted by Bakewell p. 490)

21. Weisman, pg. 16-19.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Weisman, pg. 17.

25. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Book I, Chapter 5 (emphasis is mine).

26. Vieira, pg 51. Read more at sites.google.com

August 16, 1787 A.D., Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, PA:

“Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out ‘and emit bills on the credit of the United States’ If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.”

“Mr. Butler, 2ds. the motion.”

“Mr. Madison, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.”

“Mr. Govr. Morris. striking out the words will leave room for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.”

“Mr. Ghorum was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.”

“Col. Mason had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergencies, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.”

“Mr. Ghorum. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.”

“Mr. Mercer was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens.”

“Mr. Ellsworth thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.”

“Mr. Randolph, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which might arise.”

“Mr. Wilson. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.”

“Mr. Butler. remarked that paper money was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such power.”

“Mr. Mason was still adverse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.”

“Mr. Read, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations”

“Mr. Langdon had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words ‘(and emit bills)‘”

“On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay.* N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.”

“The clause for borrowing money, agreed to nem. con.” _______________________

“*This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.” Read more at www.angelfire.com

The only frustrating aspect of finding atbash in the Hebrew Bible is that an atbash cannot survive translation into another language.5 Thus, any atbash that might have been included on the small or large plates of Nephi and/or that made it into Mormon’s abridgment would probably not have survived the translation into English. Too bad. Read more at maxwellinstitute.byu.edu

More books have been written about Abraham Lincoln than most any other man except Jesus Christ himself.

What is it about this man that has captivated the interest of hundreds of millions for more than a century and a half? And what significance do his life and accomplishments hold to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Abraham Lincoln’s success in preserving the Constitution contributed to the preservation of all religions.

President Heber J. Grant made the following declaration in February 1940: “Every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union.”

Abraham Lincoln was a contemporary with the Prophet Joseph Smith, who organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on April 6, 1830, with merely six members present in Fayette, N.Y. For five years, in fact, Abraham Lincoln and Joseph Smith lived in the same state of Illinois, Lincoln living in Springfield and the Prophet in Nauvoo, some 130 miles to the north, but there is no record of the two ever having met.

Yet they certainly knew of each other. In the eight years that the Mormons were in Illinois, there were more than 100 newspaper articles about Joseph Smith and the Mormons written in the Sangamo Journal, Springfield’s local newspaper, and it is a safe assumption that Lincoln would have read at least most of them.

It is a worthy investigation to examine how the extraordinary life and contribution of Abraham Lincoln, as president of the United States, also played an unexpected supporting role in the turbulent development of the LDS Church. Lincoln’s success in preserving the Union and Constitution contributed to the development and preservation of all religions in America.

By the mid-1800s, there were an estimated 4 million African slaves in America. Numerous times Abraham Lincoln expressed his fear that God was angry at the sad mistreatment of these men, women and children by slave owners and by the state and federal lawmakers who passed a bushel of grossly discriminatory laws against them. He believed that God did not approve of wealthy merchants and slave owners, driven by greed, who had taken upon themselves to carve up and weaken this “almost chosen nation” as Lincoln called it, by seceding from the Union for their own personal gain.

There are those who believe, as did Lincoln himself, that it was by divine design that we find at the helm of this nation, at its most critical hour of civil war, an awkward, self-educated backwoodsman who possessed a singularly remarkable humility and intellect — a man whom God appeared to mold into the most powerful and influential president ever to lead this land.

As president, Lincoln relied on the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible to a remarkable degree, and he repeatedly addressed the people of this nation with messages that one would expect to hear from the mouth of a prophet, not from a politician.

Of Abraham Lincoln, John Wesley Hill concludes, “Perhaps no American, save the prophets only, has put such implicit trust in God as did the Great Emancipator. Out of his personal experiences he testified he was as certain that God acts directly upon human affairs as he was of a fact apparent to the senses, such as that he was in the room where he was then speaking. He said: ’I have had so many evidences of His direction, so many instances when I have been controlled by some other power than my own will, that I cannot doubt that this power comes from above. I frequently see my way clear to a decision when I am conscious that I have not sufficient facts upon which to found it. But I cannot recall one instance in which I have followed my own judgment founded upon such a decision, where the results were unsatisfactory; whereas, in almost every instance where I have yielded to the views of others I have had occasion to regret it.’”

Lincoln had a consuming sense and conviction that God created this nation for some higher purpose and that the political events of this nation culminating in the mid-1800s had, for some time, been diverging from that destiny. He believed that this political and moral drift from the original intentions of the Founding Fathers had angered the “Living God” who authored its inception and that the Civil War was the Almighty’s judgment for the nation’s sins.

Of the Founding Fathers, Lincoln said, “I recollect thinking then, boy even though I was, that there must have been something more than common that those men struggled for. I am exceedingly anxious that that thing which they struggled for; that something even more than national independence; that something that held great promise to all the people of the world to all time to come; I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which the struggle was made, and I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle.”

Ron Andersen is manager of field operations in the Welfare Department for the LDS Church and president of the Lincoln Leadership Society. Read more at www.mormontimes.com